One thing the attack on Charlie Hebdo has done is given us evidence on how feminists view men like Elliot Rodger compared to the Charlie Hebdo attackers. Both Elliot Rodger and the Charlie Hebdo attackers murdered several people. However, the feminist reaction to Elliot Rodger and Charlie Hebdo has been quite different.

This is in complete contrast to the Charlie Hebdo attackers. They were not mentally ill and were working with Al Queda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Objectively, this makes the Charlie Hebdo attackers much worse than Elliot Rodger. As long as AQAP is still around, then what the Charlie Hebdo attackers did has not ended. The feminist reaction to the Charlie Hebdo attackers is to come close to defending them such as with this article from Feministing or in the case of Jonathan McIntosh (Anita Sarkeesian’s “partner” as Feminist Frequency and likely boyfriend):

McIntosh actually thinks that what the Charlie Hebdo attackers did wasn’t that bad because they were “marginalized”. Feminists pretend that Elliot Rodger is a demon and a terrorist while supporting actual terrorists. Why do feminists think Elliot Rodger was evil while the Charlie Hebdo attackers are misunderstood? It comes down to one thing. Elliot Rodger murdered (pretty white) women so they consider him to be a misogynist despite the fact that he murdered more men than women. Feminists considered some of the work that Charlie Hebdo published to be misogynist. It all comes down to the fact that feminists consider violence to be legitimate against anyone they consider to be a “misogynist”. That is why they treat Elliot Rodger and the Charlie Hebdo attackers so differently. That’s it.

This sounds like it would fit in very well with feminism. First, both the muslim hierarchy in Libya and western feminists have the same goal of preventing men from having the option of meeting women internationally. Second, they’re acting like there’s an invading force of evil men stealing women from Libya. Such paranoia is very feminist.

This is just another example of how Islam is not anti-feminist. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have the Grand Mufti of Libya essentially calling for IMBRA in reverse.

I have been skeptical of the idea that Islam would be any sort of anti-feminist force. The belief that Islam would be anti-feminist is based on the same myth that the tradcons are anti-feminist. If anything Islam will end up on the same path of feminization that happened to Christianity and conservatism. The only reason that we haven’t seen Islam become outright feminist yet is because Islam was really off the radar screen. Now that Christianity and Judaism have been feminized, Islam is now a target and ill prepared to fight off feminism. The end result is that Islam will become like the tradcons where they insist that they are “anti-feminist” all the while being feminized and pro-female in everything they do.

Malaysia’s conservative Islamic party has urged Muslim men to marry single mothers as additional wives instead of “young virgin girls”, a state official said.

Wan Ubaidah Omar, a cabinet minister from northern Kelantan, which the party controls, said the proposal aired in state parliament this week was needed to help single mothers and widows in the under-developed region.

“Muslim men usually like young girls or virgins as their additional wives, so I suggest instead of taking these young virgin girls, why don’t they marry the single mothers as their second or third wife?” she said.

“This will ease the burden of the single mothers as the men can help them to take care of their children. The single ladies have no burden,” said Wan Ubaidah, who is in charge of women, family and health affairs in the state.

We now have a Muslim woman telling Muslim men to not marry virgins. For now, only a Muslim man’s first wife (and most Muslim men will only have one wife) can be a virgin, but soon enough even that will fall by the wayside. Some of you may think this is only about helping widows. Think again:

Wan Ubaidah said her call was not meant to encourage polygamous marriage but as a way to help at least 16,500 single mothers aged under 60 in Kelantan, a state that has one of the highest divorce rates in the country.

It’s a call to force men to marry divorced women, not widows. These same people defend this as being necessary for the “welfare of women”:

The minister also called for husbands who leave their wives without good reason to be whipped under religious laws.

“Some of these husbands just go missing in action suddenly, and leave the wives without any food or money. These kind of men should be whipped, they deserve it,” Wan Ubaidah said.

“This punishment is not in the state sharia law at the moment, but we can make it a law to make men more responsible; there is a lot of room for improvement in the legal system to protect the welfare of women,” she added.

The Muslims are now on the verge of adopting all of the feminist myths that divorce only happens because men are abusive or vanish. It’s also clear that they are only a step away from promoting deadbeat dad myths.

We often hear about how foreign (usually meaning non-Western) women are different. There is some truth to this but it’s not because non-Western women are different. It’s because they have lacked the opportunities for all the pathologies we see from Western women. Sometimes you can see non-Western women be similar to Western women.

In 1984, I began no-fee counseling of divorced fathers from my home after work. By the time I tired of donating much time to wimps who asked for help, then attacked me for doing it wrong, I had contact with an estimated 1,600+ men and a few non-custodial women.

A few months after I started, I got a call from a devout Christian. He discovered his wife was having an affair, and assumed the correct thing to do was talk to his pastor.

The pastor immediately screamed insults at him, telling him it was his fault.

I could not believe what I was hearing. I was reading the Bible before either of them was born, and it never says a husband is responsible for sins of a wife who is not totally submissive. And, few are.

I learned as the years passed that a large percentage of Christian males believe the same thing. Their egos, akin to that of a two year old baby boy, assume their fantastic and dynamic personality is why their wives are submissive.

My tub of lard son-in-law is just like that. Yet, my daughter rules the roost at his house. When she walks into church, she exudes submission, but that is the only time. You can hear her screams of rage half a block away, but he thinks he is the leader. Hee, hee.

It took me a long time to understand their stupidity.

The Bible says the man is to be the leader. These jackasses assume a man becomes leader by leading, because they ignore Genesis, which explains in great detail how women really are, and root around in Ephesians. The Bible says no such thing.

How do we form an Army? Do we appoint a five-star general, who goes out into a field, and shouts, “FALL IN!!!!” And, people scurry this way and that, making uniforms and obtaining weapons and frantically building barracks, then run out and in a couple minutes fall into formation?

Don’t be silly. An Army is built from the bottom up, and when it becomes big enough to need a 5-star general, they have a 5-star general who falls into the niche created for him. A leader can exist only when there are disciplined followers.

The Bible does indeed state that men are to be leaders, but there is no direct commandment to be a leader.

The Bible tells women to submit to their husbands. That is a direct commandment. No man can be a leader without voluntary submission by his wife. Period. And, the nature of men is such that when a woman submits, a man cannot help being the leader, just as a new mother cannot help being a mommy and caring for her new baby as best she can.

And, the Bible says no one is righteous, no, not even one. They ignore this and assume wives are without sin, but husbands aren’t. S-T-U-P-I-D!!!

You know word association? You say black, I think white. You say up, I think down. If you say Christian male, I think, pompous arrogant, conceited jackass. That pretty much tells you what is happening in Christian churches today.

Let’s not forget what Anonymous Age 68 was talking about happened back in the 80s. Things are worse now.

I have access to the email and computers of co-workers. Long story short.

Attractive women have sex with a lot of men. A lot of strangers. At the gym, girls night out, shopping at Walmart… The shit they tell each other in emails and but especially the diaries and calendars they keep on their lap tops. Shocking revelations. That wet time of the month? Lock her up somewhere. Seriously, they are out of control.

It’s more projection. Women want to enslave men for their resources, therefore “Men want to keep us as slaves in the kitchen.” Women conspire against men in the workplace, therefore “Men conspire against us in the workplace.” Women are cunfaithful (or want to be) in relationships, therefore “Men are always unfaithful.” Women know that they can get laid anytime they want, therefore “Men sleep with anything with a pulse.” Women are shallow and don’t care about men as human beings, therefore “Men are shallow and don’t care about us as human beings.”

Most of them have a very solipsistic view of the world, and whatever negative compulsion they have running around in their head, they rationalize it by projecting on men.

Social conservative Ronald Reagan signed into law as Governor of California the first unilateral divorce law in 1969 if I remember correctly. Over 10 years later he became President, and never lifted a finger to undo what he had done, even though the damage was obvious by then. In 1986, he signed the Bradley Amendment into law, passed by a Congress with the aid of social conservatives. Because who would not want “deadbeat dads” to pay their fair share — or unfair share, if need be — of child support? Since that time, a man can be divorced by his wife for no reason at all, other than she’s “not in love anymore”, deprived of access to his children, forced into Family Court where he won’t get to even confront his accuser in some cases, ordered to pay — and if he loses his job, through no fault of his own, either he continues to pay into poverty, or he can be thrown in jail.

When social conservatives talk about defending marriage, they almost always are discussing the issue of homosexual marriage. Very rarely will there be any discussion of divorce, and its effects. If there is discussion, it is always in terms of the effects on women and children, never the effects upon men. Social conservatives clearly do not care about what divorce does to men. Go look at Maggie Gallagher’s site, or any of the articles regarding divorce at such social conservative sites as National Review, Commentary, American Spectator and the like. They show no interest in what divorce does to men. Want to surprise a socon? Tell them that 2/3 of divorces are filed by women. It takes them aback every single time. Socons seem to live in the 1960′s, where divorce is what nasty old men do to their dutiful wives in order to get a hot young thing, not something that 30-something women do to their dutiful husband in order to keep access to his money while denying him access to his children.

Only men’s rights sites, such as this one, even broach the subject of the effects of divorce upon men.

In 1994, as part of an omnibus “crime” act, the liberal Clinton administration passed the “Violence Against Women Act”, which fully funds feminist-run “shelters” where women are counseled to divorce their husbands. VAWA defines “domestic violence” as including such dastardly actions as “shouting” or “requiring her to ask for money”. Thanks to VAWA, any woman in the US can be rid of her husband by simply picking up the phone, dialing the police (9-1-1) and saying “I’m afraid. My husband scares me”. The police are required to come. In many states they arerequired to arrest him. The abuses of the law under VAWA are many, wide and varied. The results of federal funding of feminism goes deep into society. VAWA came up for renewal in 2000, and it was signed into law again. In 2006, the social-conservative Republican party rubberstamped the bill again, and social-conservative darling G.W. Bush signed the law without a murmur.

Try to get a socon to discuss VAWA, it is useless. “Why are you in favor of violence against women?” is the usual response. Pointing out the one-sided nature of the law, the lack of any support for those men physically attacked by their wives, the one – sided nature of family court, the Federal funding for feminism — all useless, because in my experience socons can not, will not look beyond the superficial — “why are you in favor of violence against women?” is the sum total of any discussion.

You can always find social conservatives willing to thrash men for using porn. But good luck finding one who will even admit that women are over 1/3 of the users. And forget about any discussion why a “happily married” man might prefer looking at pictures of women engaged in sex with men to spending another frustrating evening with a shrew that never fails to point out his many faults. Just forget that entirely, because in socon land, any fault in marriage lies on the head of the husband. The tendency of social conservative men and women to put women on a pedestal is so common it really is hardly worth discussing.

Consider the ongoing maltreatment of boys and young men in schools. It’s rare to get a socon to even admit something is wrong, and when you can get over that hurdle the only response is handwringing, not any support for a solution. Young men are actively discriminated against in higher education, go look at any socon publication and see if it is even mentioned. If it is, at best there’s a parrot-like “we don’t understand! We dont’ understand!” quality to any commentary.

One-sided divorce, one sided family court, one-sided “domestic violence”, false rape charges, explicit discrimination in schools, universities and on the job — all of these and more occurred either with no resistance by social conservatives or with their active assistance.

I know, I know — all we have to do is “just man up” and all these things will go away.

Alongside this blame there is very little expectations placed on women and precious little talk of responsibilities of a wife to her husband. I recall many sermons in my youth and young adulthood going on and on and on about responsibilities of men including keeping their wives at home with the children. There was not too much said about what wives who were at home full time ought to be doing to support their husbands and how they could add value to their families thanks to their position at home. This reality doesn’t differ too much from the focus on rights sans responsibility that is feminism in society at large.

These types of sermons are common in many “moderate” and “liberal” mosques. I personally haven’t heard of a sermon in several years about a wife’s responsibility to her husband from any Muslim cleric and I attend services almost every week.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. And it was good intentions that created Meedan, a site that was designed to, as Wired Magazine reported, “encourage ‘citizen diplomacy’ between the West and Middle East by writing in English and translating to Arabic (and vice versa) to reduce tensions at the grassroots level”. What could possibly go wrong? World War III for starters.

This website will bring two groups together:

The propaganda ministries of Middle Eastern dictatorships and theocracies

While Spencer covered how the media is ideologically against identifying these men as Muslim, he did not cover why the media chose to refer to these men as essentially “unmarried men”. The media refused to describe the men arrested as Muslim because of their political correctness. However, there are many ways Reuters could have written this. Reuters chose “unmarried men” because of their anti-male and feminist ideology. It makes it sound like the men arrested at JFK Airport were more like George Sodini than Mohammed or Osama. It’s not just about hiding that it was Muslims involved in these arrests. It’s an attempt to kill two birds with one stone by also trying to shift the blame on to men by implying that terrorism is caused by regular (unmarried) men who are American citizens.

The media like other feminist and anti-male ideologues see the average man as the problem not the guys who are actually flying planes into buildings. Unmarried men are free of parts of the system that are designed to extract wealth from men such as the divorce court system. There is a real threat that men will either go ghost in greater numbers or fight back in the future. Expect to see more of this general blaming of men or unmarried men specifically in the future.

LaRose’s arrest was due to the work of the Jawa Report and Youtube Smackdown who have been tracking supporters of terrorism on Youtube and twitter and having their videos on Youtube flagged for removal. She spent a lot of time on Youtube where these groups discovered her calls for violent jihad on Youtube and her use of twitter to raise funds for terrorists. You can read more about how LaRose was tracked on Youtube from the Jawa Report. In that link, the Jawa Report has described LaRose as a “middle aged sociopath woman desperate for love, lonely and isolated”. The Jawa Report has more about LaRose here.

Since 9/11 one thing we have heard Bush and others say is that we had to go to war in places like Iraq and Afghanistan (or more accurately had to stay there) was to “liberate Muslim women”. It’s right up there in stupidity with trying to create a democracy in the Muslim world as a reason why we have to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I supported getting rid of the Taliban and Saddam (and still do), the fact of the matter is that the US shouldn’t be in the business of democracy building in the Muslim world (at least not without some form of de-Islamification) or trying to liberate Muslim women.

The Shah of Iran came the closest to creating a modern state in a Muslim country. (Whether it would end up democratic by any standard is a debate that is irrelevant for the purposes of this blog entry.) Since Iran retains a great deal of its pre-Islamic Persian heritage (something that is not Islamic), the Shah had a better shot than anyone, anywhere in the Muslim world of doing this, yet he failed spectalularly. One of the reasons why he failed was opposition by women.

Most analysis of the Shah and what he tried to do says that he was on the side of women’s rights. The Shah claimed so himself similar to how Bush and other Neocons claim to be fighting to liberate Islamic women. While what the Shah was doing did technically increase women’s political freedom, this doesn’t tell the whole story. The Shah vs. Khomeni with respect to women is framed as women’s rights vs. patriarchy. This is not correct because Islam is not patriarchal in the sense that we in the West think of patriarchy (i.e. monogamy, etc.) Islam is institutionalized hypergamy through limited polygamy. In Islam a man can have up to four wives. (In some places Muslim men can have even more wives.) This means that it is possible that up to 75% of men could never get a wife under Islam (assuming a male to female ratio of close to 1:1). Whiskey points out that 12% of Muslim marriages are polygamous while in Saudi Arabia its as high as 30%. This allows women to share an “alpha” male and explains why so many Iranian women were opposed to the Shah’s banning of the chador. Intentionally or unintentionally the Shah’s plans to make a modern state were on the path of taking on the institutionalized hypergamy through limited polygamy of Islam one way or another. This would mean that women would lose the ability to share “alpha” men that Islam granted them. (This is in addition to the fact that the chador like the burka denigrates men.)

Even knowing this why were Iranian women so against the Shah because wasn’t he granting them increased political freedom? The Shah was doing that, but outside of a handful of women, women aren’t interested in political freedom. I was reading another MRA blog recently and someone pointed out how once the government/elites were done taking all freedom away from men, they would start taking away the freedom of women. Someone else correctly pointed out that women aren’t going to notice or care that the government/elites are taking away their freedom. Whether its in Iran or the West, outside of a handful of women, women aren’t interested in freedom.

This gets us to why wars to “liberate Muslim women” and create democratic states in the Muslim world are pointless. Muslim women like other women aren’t going to care that you are fighting a war for their political freedom since they aren’t interested. Take these women plus the men who aren’t interested in freedom due to Islam and there is no way a free and democratic state could ever be created in the Muslim world (without de-Islamifying the country to create enough men who are interested in political freedom).

When you go out, you always make sure that your house’s door is closed and so are the windows. This preventive measures are to avoid letting thieves in. Many times you have heard ‘Do not invite thieves by leaving your window open’ of if you are going to park your car on the street ‘Do not encourage thieves by leaving your valuables insight in your car’ as this will most certainly attract thieves to your car, and the outcome of that is always not something you wish to deal with as it involves a loss in property and a loss in wealth and a shake to your emotions and nerves.

Such is the case with men! Women have to protect themselves so that men do not steal their bodies or their mind or their sharaf (Honour).

Women wear hijab because, as my father said, hijab is a shield (for French speaking sisters he said “carapace”). I said “yes”, then he said “a shield from men” and I said that this is exactly the reason behind the hijab.

This is really a long winded way for Muslims to say “all men are rapists”. This also says that women are more important than men and that men are disposable, both of which feminists believe. There are even better versions of this such as this excerpt from this link:

For still other women, however, such as the Egyptian thinker Safinaz Kazim, the hijab is to be reconstrued as a quasi-feminist statement. A woman who exposes her charms in public is vulnerable to what might be described as ‘visual theft’, so that men unknown to her can enjoy her visually without her consent. By covering herself, she regains her ability to present herself as a physical being only to her family and sorority. This view of hijab, as a kind of moral raincoat particularly useful under the inclement climate of modernity, allows a vision of Islamic woman as liberated, not from tradition and meaning, but from ostentation and from subjection to random visual rape by men.

Here we have use of the term “visual rape” just like a feminist. What this shows is that both Islam and feminism regard men as evil beings intent on sexually defiling “pure” women. Also, both feminism and Islam are about making it so men can’t look at women and mind control. Both groups are trying to force men to turn their “gaze” away from women and not have certain thoughts in this case sexual thoughts. Muslims do it through the burka and the hijab. Feminists use sexual harassment laws and regulations.

Indeed, many Muslim women I spoke with did not feel at all subjugated by the chador or the headscarf. On the contrary, they felt liberated from what they experienced as the intrusive, commodifying, basely sexualising Western gaze. Many women said something like this: “When I wear Western clothes, men stare at me, objectify me, or I am always measuring myself against the standards of models in magazines, which are hard to live up to – and even harder as you get older, not to mention how tiring it can be to be on display all the time.

Take out the references to Allah and everything the Muslims said about men, the hijab, and the burka sounds just like feminists such as Naomi Wolf. It’s really that simple.

Recently the Sci-Fi channel, a cable channel that used to be about showing science fiction and related programming changed its name to the Syfy channel. The Sci-Fi channel has been dying for a long time. Now, it is offically dead. This name change represents that the channel is no longer about science fiction in any way, shape, or form. However, the Sci-Fi channel has been dying for a long time. The death of the Sci-Fi channel started in 1998 when Bonnie Hammer took over the channel and decided that “more female viewers were needed”. Of course, there couldn’t be a cable channel that men would be interested in watching. Women can’t have that. It took eleven years, but the Sci-Fi channel is now dead due to what is essentially an anti-male crusade.

The “reimagined” (more like redelusioned) Battlestar Galactica was incredibly anti-male. (You can read the link for many examples.) Dirk Benedict who played Starbuck in the original BSG series (yes there was an original BSG series in the 70s) also had a lot to say about the poltically correct [also anti-male by definition] bullshit of the new BSG. Beyond that here is the biggest example of politcally correct/anti-male BS from the new BSG. In the original series from the 70s, the Cylons were created by reptilian aliens NOT humans. The mechanical Cylons commited genocide against their reptilian creators and then proceded to attack other aliens and destroy them. One of these species of aliens, the Hasari, asked for help against the Cylons after the Cylons invaded their territory. Humans responded to their call for help which started the Cylon-Human war. In the new BSG the backstory was completely different, and its the result of women catering to women. The backstory from the original BSG was too pro-male since it shows the war is sometimes necessary.

It actually gets better if you watch all of the episodes of the original series. At one point the humans fighting the Cylons come across another previously unknown human colony. This colony is divided between two states who are at war, the Western Nationalists who are free and democratic and the Eastern Alliance which is run by some form of totalitarianism. The president of the Western Nationalists negotiates a peace with the Eastern Alliance, but the Eastern Alliance just used the “peace” as a cover to attack the Western Nationalists. Again, this was too pro-male for the then heads of the Sci-Fi channel. (As an aside Islam has a word for using peace treaties to regroup and attack like this. It’s called “hudna”. This tatic was also a favorite of the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) before they were destroyed earlier this year.)

This was true in Iran itself as well. In 1979 in Iran, women marched in chadors to protest the Shah. (The Shah had made the chador illegal.) The chador is similar to a burka. Remember what I said about burkas being similar to sexual harrasment law suits. The same applies to the chador.

The links go even deeper than that. This video goes into more:

To this day there is no feminist opposition to Islam even though it seems logical. That’s because both feminism and Islam are part of the Alliance. It’s important to remember that the Alliance is not a coherent entity. The Alliance exists simply for the purpose of trying to make the consitutent groups stronger than they would be by themselves. Many parts of the Alliance only have their enemies in common, such as straight white men. In the case of the Iranian Revolution, this enemy was the Shah.

What happens when the Alliances’ enemies such as straight white men are defeated? Various parts of the Alliance will then turn on each other. This is what happened in Iran. As soon as the Shah was gone Khomeini turned on his allies since he no longer needed them. (It could have ended up going the opposite way since every part of the Alliance is eagerly waiting for the day they can turn on the other parts of the Alliance and take over.) Of course, the rest of the Alliance has not learned this lesson. If the Alliance were to truly win, then Islam would most likely end up the winner since Islam has numbers on its side.

What this means is that the future will like Iran under the Islamic Republic if the Alliance is victorius. Many Iranian-Americans like to say about the Islamic Republic, “they promised us Heaven, but delivered Hell.” It’s the same for the rest of the Alliance. They promise Heaven, but will deliver Hell if they win.

Feminism is allied with various other movements. As we know feminism is marxist by nature and will naturally ally itself with socialism/communism and (dark green) environmentalism. This is well known. On the other side, it would seem logical to most people that feminism would be against Islam, yet this is not the case. Ask a feminist about the treatment of women in Islamic countries, you will get some BS answer about how its a different culture or its the result of racism. Any person with a brain can tell you that such ideas are BS. The question is why aren’t feminism and Islam at war with each other. In fact Islam and feminism are allied with each other. Not only that but feminism and Islam are allied with several other anti-freedom and anti-civilization movements.

I will be writing several posts about this subject over time detailing various aspects of what I call “The Alliance”. This first post will be an introduction. I know many of you will have questions about this so feel free to reply or email them to me. Chances are most of your questions will be answered in subsequent parts in this series.

With that, what is the Alliance? The Alliance is made up of several types of groups which I will list here:

Socialists/Communists (red) – various socialist and communists political parties, so called “anti-fascist” groups

Fascists and “right wing” racists (brown) – KKK, BNP, Jean Marie Le Pen, Neo-Nazis (note: I put right wing in quotes because groups like the KKK and the British National Party aren’t really right wing, but are called that)

I gave a color to each group since its commonplace to hear about the red-green alliance (the alliance between socialism/communism and environmentalism). Essentially, the Alliance is the red-green-black-brown-pink alliance.

I know some of you reading this will think I’m crazy. After all the KKK and feminists don’t really seem to get along after all. Yes, its true that the brown-pink parts of the Alliance would be far away from each other if a drawing of the links of these groups was done. However, I will be addressing that in a subsequent part in this series. A short answer for now is that the link between them is Islam.

Other links in the alliance are self evident such as the link between feminists, socialists/communists, and environmentalists are self evident. The fact that there are such schools of thought as eco-feminism are a testament to this.

However, its the link between feminism and Islam that is the most interesting. It is the glue that holds the entire alliance together. This link is based on multiculturalism and simple convenience (they have the same enemies, namely straight Western men). Regardless of the reason we know its real. This is why feminists protested the American invasion of Afghanistan despite the fact that it would and did improve the status of women in Afghanistan. This is why homosexuals protest for Palestinian statehood despite the fact that if any of these homosexuals were in Palestine or any other Islamic country they would be executed on the spot.

The link between feminism and Islam goes deeper. I have asked the question in the past, “What is the difference between burkas and sexual harassment suits?” On its face its an absurd question, but not if you think about it. What is the net effect of sexual harassment laws, policies, and suits? To make men avert their eyes and not look at women (or at least the men a particular woman doesn’t find attractive). What does the burka do? It prevents men from looking at women. They are almost the same!

Why are any of these groups allied at all? It’s because they have some sort of problem with current technological civilization. Jihadists hate technology because it undermines their ability to keep other Muslims in line and because they want to keep their 7th century world intact. (Dark green) Environmentalists hate technology because they worship the environment. Socialists and communists hate technology because its empowers individuals and thus its too libertarian for them. Fascists hate technology for a similar reason. Feminists hate technology because it (for the most part) empowers men. After all this is why feminists refer to Newton’s Principia Mathematica as a rape manual.

This is why this blog exists. It’s because technology will continue to liberate men now and in the future. Things like sex bots and artificial wombs may seem like fantasies now, but so would DNA testing 50 years ago.

In subsequent posts in this series I will write about specific topics relating to the Alliance such as how strong the links in the Alliance are, various examples of the alliance in action, and the Alliance’s coming total defeat.